Question on message board submissions

[SmashinYoungMan]

Is there a general rule of thumb in regards to how large a forum should be in terms of posts and number of members before you should submit it? I browsed through http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/On_the_Web/Message_Boards/ before submitting, and there are some pretty small and not that active forums listed there - many smaller than mine - so I went ahead and submitted. But I realize that guidelines and stuff change, and many of those might have been grandfathered in.

As I said, I already submitted, so there is a chance I "blew my wad" too early, but I'm just curious.

 

[hutcheson]

Don't look at the smallest and least active ones -- don't aspire to being the second worst site listed in the category. Look at the largest and most active ones (they are the ones that would be added if reviewed TODAY!). Look at what your board offers that no other one can (in terms of expertise provided, foci served). If there isn't anything on your board that couldn't just as well have been done on one of the larger, more active listed boards, then surfers are better off being guided to the larger community.

 

[SmashinYoungMan]

Don't look at the smallest and least active ones -- don't aspire to being the second worst site listed in the category. Look at the largest and most active ones (they are the ones that would be added if reviewed TODAY!). Look at what your board offers that no other one can (in terms of expertise provided, foci served). If there isn't anything on your board that couldn't just as well have been done on one of the larger, more active listed boards, then surfers are better off being guided to the larger community.

I definitely hear what you are saying, and I agree. My aspirations for the forum is to become one of the larger, more active and fun communities for its members. I simply looked at the smaller ones as a guide to whether I should go ahead and submit or not.

Of course, where forums are concerned, there is a sort of catch-22. A forum's value is directly proportional to its number of active members. I have a few dozen highly loyal regulars who enjoy what I've created for them - and each other's company, of course - so I believe it is a worthy forum. Whether or not it is worthy enough for the ODP just yet is something I'm not sure of, but I figured I'd go ahead and give it a shot.

 

[spectregunner]

I have a specialized single-topic forum. I have 30+ members and more than 800 posts.

In my opionion, I am not even close to having enough content to justify a submission.

 

[windharp]

The ODP is not a promotion tool, we don't want to make specific websites more popular. We want to supply our visitors with high quality links, and - sorry to say - regarding forums these are the fully grown ones, not those still developing. Either lots of traffic or highly specialized.

 

[SmashinYoungMan]

The ODP is not a promotion tool, we don't want to make specific websites more popular. We want to supply our visitors with high quality links, and - sorry to say - regarding forums these are the fully grown ones, not those still developing. Either lots of traffic or highly specialized.

I'm aware of that. Of course, anytime a webmaster submits his or her own site, it is for promotion purposes; ideally, the webmaster has worked to make their site a quality one. Webmasters and the ODP editors' goals don't necessarily have to be at cross-purposes (though I realize they often are).

But you touched on what I was wondering about initially: What constitutes a "fully grown" forum? My community is a year old, with nearly 90 members, many of whom have remained very active the whole time. I recently relaunched the site under a new domain name, but the community - the true essence of any forum - is the same and, in my opinion, highly developed if not huge in numbers.

I just want to clarify, I'm not arguing at all that my community should be worthy of a listing. If it is not per the ODP guidelines for forums, I'll be just fine with that. Again, this is all about simple curiosity for me.

 

[windharp]

We can't give you hard numbers, because those are just a measurement of quantity, not quality. Populating a forum with large numbers of postings is easy, populating a forum with large numbers of high quality postings interesting to visitors is not.

If a forum has a very unusual topic ... say "how to raise brown hampsters with white spots" then we would surely find 50 threads lots and list it (in the "brown hampsters with white spots" category of course). If it was about "anything the world has to offer, with a special view on hampsters" I would not be impressed by 50 threads.

 

[SmashinYoungMan]

We can't give you hard numbers, because those are just a measurement of quantity, not quality. Populating a forum with large numbers of postings is easy, populating a forum with large numbers of high quality postings interesting to visitors is not.

If a forum has a very unusual topic ... say "how to raise brown hampsters with white spots" then we would surely find 50 threads lots and list it (in the "brown hampsters with white spots" category of course). If it was about "anything the world has to offer, with a special view on hampsters" I would not be impressed by 50 threads.

I wasn't exactly looking for hard numbers. In fact, your post was just about what I was looking for. Thanks, windharp.

 

[jjwill]

It always boils down to the same factor, unique content. Does the site offer something of significant not already found in the directory. It's really that simple.

 

[hutcheson]

An established community counts for uniqueness.

The focus can also count.